Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to let-sunny/canicode. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/let-sunny/canicode/main/.claude/commands/review-run.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/let-sunny/canicodeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/let-sunny/canicode/review-run)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/let-sunny/canicode/review-run"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/let-sunny/canicode/review-run.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.00784 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
review-run scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a completed /develop pipeline run and provide a structured QA assessment.
Input: $ARGUMENTS (run directory path, e.g. logs/develop/253--2026-04-16-0903)
Instructions
Step 1 — Pipeline Overview
Read $ARGUMENTS/index.json and summarize:
- Issue number, title, branch
- Pipeline status (completed / failed / partial)
- Each step's status, duration, and retry count
- Total pipeline duration
If index.json is missing, stop and report: "Not a valid run directory."
Step 2 — Plan Quality
Read $ARGUMENTS/plan.json and assess:
- Are the tasks well-scoped and aligned with the issue?
- Are designDecisions reasonable and well-justified?
- Are risks identified and realistic?
- Does
split/remainingDescriptionmake sense for the issue size?
Step 3 — Implementation Review
Read $ARGUMENTS/implement-log.json for decisions and knownRisks.
Read $ARGUMENTS/implement-output.txt for agent output context.
Then run the actual diff to see what changed:
git diff main...<branch>
Use the branch field from index.json. If the branch no longer exists (e.g., merged and deleted), note this and skip the diff.
Assess:
- Do the changes match the plan's tasks?
- Are the implementer's decisions sound?
- Are the knownRisks legitimate concerns?
- Does the diff look clean — no unrelated changes, no leftover debug code?
Step 4 — Test Results
Read $ARGUMENTS/test-result.json (may not exist if test was skipped).
If it exists, check whether lint and tests passed or what failed.
Step 5 — Self-Review Findings
Read $ARGUMENTS/review.json and assess:
- Is the review verdict reasonable given the findings?
- Are the findings legitimate issues or false positives?
- Did the reviewer catch the implementer's knownRisks?
- Are intentConflict flags used correctly?
Step 6 — Fix Coverage
Read $ARGUMENTS/fix-log.json (may not exist if fix was skipped).
If it exists, assess:
- Did the fixer address all review findings?
- For skipped findings: are the skip reasons justified?
- Did the fix introduce any new concerns?
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 111 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A eb67f6958218
review-run is a command published in the GitHub repository let-sunny/canicode (10 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 784 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks — writes code following specs and design.
gentle-sdd-ff
Fast-forward all SDD planning phases — proposal through tasks.
sdd-explore
Explore and investigate an idea or feature — reads codebase and compares approaches.
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
parallel-analyze
Multi-perspective analysis using parallel subagents. Analyzes code from architecture, security, performance, and testing viewpoints simultaneously.